Thread: Is it human to be inhumane? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029162
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
I have asked this question before, but rather unclearly.
"Could we still be happy and fulfilled human beings in a world where we are restrained from doing evil (as defined by God)?"
I know C.S. Lewis gave his answer, but I don't think his theology stands up to much thought.
I would like to know what shipmates think as I imagine the Kingdom of God/Heaven to be such a place.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
As I seem to quite regularly do what I consider to be wrong (let alone what God considers) it doesn't feel as though I'm particularly restrained.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The "as defined by God" phrase bothers me. I think human fulfilment entails being creative partners in the process of deciding what is evil. Being restrained would be bad enough, but not being able to have a say in what is good and what is evil would be even more dehumanising.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Alan Cresswell quote:
As I seem to quite regularly do what I consider to be wrong (let alone what God considers) it doesn't feel as though I'm particularly restrained.
That seems to avoid the question. Would you be happy if you were restrained from doing wrong?
hatless quote:
The "as defined by God" phrase bothers me
Maybe I have my theology wrong, but I thought that Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven could be a destination after a brief stay in this world.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Alan Cresswell quote:
As I seem to quite regularly do what I consider to be wrong (let alone what God considers) it doesn't feel as though I'm particularly restrained.
That seems to avoid the question. Would you be happy if you were restrained from doing wrong?
I guess I value freedom enough that if I was constrained to doing one thing, if I had no choice, then I can't see how I would be happy. So, with a free choice to do a range of good things would be ideal.
Would I be happy if I was free to do good, but restrained from doing bad? Probably so.
The problem is that things are often the other way around. Plenty of opportunities to do wrong, but circumstances conspiring to make it very hard to do good. Those circumstances including not being entirely clear about what is the good things we can do.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
hatless quote:
The "as defined by God" phrase bothers me
Maybe I have my theology wrong, but I thought that Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven could be a destination after a brief stay in this world.
I'd argue that you have your theology wrong, although as with much theology, there will be a plethora of views.
Most of the kingdom theology I've read that appears to stack up takes the kingdom of God/kingdom of Heaven (largely interchangeable terms) to refer to something for this world, something that is now, not something that happens once everything is 'perfected' in fluffy-clouds-'n'-harp-land.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
The way I see it is that we won't want to do anything harmful when living within the closeness of God which is God's Kingdom. I see it as a growing Kingdom built on earth as it is in heaven, in the here and now, as long as God's love is active in all we say and do.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Alan Cresswell quote:
Would I be happy if I was free to do good, but restrained from doing bad? Probably so.
That is an interesting answer - do others agree?
Snags quote:
Most of the kingdom theology I've read that appears to stack up takes the kingdom of God/... Heaven (largely interchangeable terms) to refer to something for this world
Jesus seems to teach that it begins now for His disciples, I agree, but there is enough emphasis on the "life to come" to take it seriously.
And the eternal "life to come" seems to be in the Kingdom of God.
Who says it will be "fluffy-clouds-'n'-harp-land"?
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
It's the idea of evil as defined by God I was picking up on. Is it clear what evil is? Is there a divine definition?
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
Originally posted by Hatless
quote:
It's the idea of evil as defined by God I was picking up on. Is it clear what evil is? Is there a divine definition?
"Aye, there's the rub" If God said something was evil then doing it would be an eternal punishment. And can we trust that God "really" did say that? Biblical literalists would stand on their definition. Biblical liberalists(only one letter changed) would say "It depends".
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
There are certainly situations I can imagine in which (I hope) I would be restrained by someone from doing something seriously wrong. I do not want to be made incapable of thinking of doing something wrong. I value my freedom of will, and I believe God also values it.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
hatless quote:
It's the idea of evil as defined by God I was picking up on.
o.k. if you need to define it, since we are made in God's image, lets say causing others to suffer physical or mental pain.
I know it may be done in this world for good reason but lets assume for the purposes of the OP all are under the same restriction in the Kingdom of God.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It's the idea of evil as defined by God I was picking up on. Is it clear what evil is? Is there a divine definition?
I think that's the reason for the definition. Because we will also be inaccurate in our definition of evil-- it will always be skewed both by our own self-interests and prejudices, and by our limited perspective. But we assume that God has a perfect, i.e. divine, definition. Our inability to always discern that is the nature of the problem.
[ 11. May 2015, 15:32: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
hatless quote:
It's the idea of evil as defined by God I was picking up on.
o.k. if you need to define it, since we are made in God's image, lets say causing others to suffer physical or mental pain.
I know it may be done in this world for good reason but lets assume for the purposes of the OP all are under the same restriction in the Kingdom of God.
No, I don't want to define it. It was you who said God has defined it.
But in challenging the idea that we know what good and evil are, and in suggesting that better than knowing this is being able to share in working it out, I was making my comment on your question.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Most cultures work hard to discourage murder. Does that feel confining? I guess yes if you really seriously think the world would be better off without some specific individual - or ethnic group.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
IconiumBound quote:
Aye, there's the rub" If God said something was evil then doing it would be an eternal punishment.
Do you mean earn eternal punishment?
The point of my post is that I am assuming a state where you were physically prevented from doing what is wrong in God's sight. Could you be happy?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
The point of my post is that I am assuming a state where you were physically prevented from doing what is wrong in God's sight. Could you be happy?
Depends on how limiting you think God is.
No murder, no arson, no bullying, destructive cheating, forced to figure out a way to get along with each other or at minimum avoid each other, I don't understand the question, isn't that the culture we all strive for and try to teach our kids?
If you think God has a very narrow rigid view of good, limiting diet to a few specific veggies, clothing to a few specific colors and textures and styles, limiting what you may read to just "the Good Book", limiting TV to only educational shows, frowning on any novels or movies and most music as not directly about God and therefore forbidden, I guess there have been cultures that frown on these and more, I haven't read that the Amish feel deprived although some of the "lock up the wives and kids" groups do feel deprived.
If I thought the only acceptable way to honor the sabbath was to sit and do nothing, that would be confining, but a break from work and housework is welcome, freedom to go on a picnic or party or walk in the woods instead *I* see as honoring God.
How broad or limited is your view of what God thinks "good"?
[code]
[ 12. May 2015, 05:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Belle Ringer quote:
No murder, no arson, no bullying, destructive cheating, forced to figure out a way to get along with each other or at minimum avoid each other, I don't understand the question, isn't that the culture we all strive for and try to teach our kids?
You seem to miss my point. We do naturally strive for all these things, but our nature will always 'out' no matter what we teach our kids. We then resort to violent force to get our will.
Why should I think God has narrow views? We are made to be adventurous, loving, creative, kind, companionable, lovers of good food, imaginative - the list goes on. I am no Sabbath enforcer.
However, if God was an enforcer when it came to us trying to impose our will on others who were simply all the things I list above, would you be happy in such a world?
Or would the loss of freedom to use main force on others make you unhappy?
I don't deny a knowledge of evil to anyone - we were given that; would being prevented from doing it make you less happy? Or less human even?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
"Could we still be happy and fulfilled human beings in a world where we are restrained from doing evil (as defined by God)?"
Explain to me what God defines as Evil and I'll be able to answer your question.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
George Spigot quote:
Explain to me what God defines as Evil and I'll be able to answer your question.
Since we cannot know the mind of God, we can only use our inner lights and intuition. Lets just take what we do know. As I have said; anything that is done to deliberately cause suffering to others in order to impose our will.
If you were prevented by physical restraint from doing this, would you still be human and happy?
Can you answer the question on this basis?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Well as far as I can tell I don't consciously cause harm to others in order to impos my will so nothing would change for me. And any worries about lack of free will would be vastly outweighed by the pretty much vastly improved lives of victims everywhere. Just think of all the wars that would cease. Not to mention the prevention of people voting conservative.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Belle Ringer quote:
No murder, no arson, no bullying, destructive cheating, forced to figure out a way to get along with each other or at minimum avoid each other, I don't understand the question, isn't that the culture we all strive for and try to teach our kids?
You seem to miss my point...
...We are made to be adventurous, loving, creative, kind, companionable, lovers of good food, imaginative - the list goes on...
However, if God was an enforcer when it came to us trying to impose our will on others who were simply all the things I list above, would you be happy in such a world?
"We are made to be adventurous, loving, creative, kind, companionable, lovers of good food, imaginative" Yes! But I'm puzzled, do you think God disapproves of adventurousness? Or are you saying you personally cannot be happy unless you are forceably bending someone your will? Happiness exists only when there is someone to beat up?
You are right, I totally don't understand your point. Is there a different way to express it?
Maybe I should ask, are you routinely successful in forcing others to your will against their own desires? Most people discover it works only temporarily, at best. Life is easier and more fun if you learn to get along with each other.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Belle Ringer quote:
You are right, I totally don't understand your point. Is there a different way to express it?
I am trying to imagine the situation where God, not humanity, rules. That is, the Kingdom of God.
As already said, Christian teaching is that living in the Kingdom starts in this world (by living under the will of God) and continues in the next real Kingdom, as I understand it.
I am trying to say that as human beings part of our nature is to use our free will to impose that will, by force, on others. Even to the extent of causing others to suffer. Fortunately, not everyone is willing to go that far, but consciously or unconsciously we all want to do it sometimes.
Since evil cannot exist in what is literally the 'Kingdom of God', humanity would have to live in a situation where this particular freedom of the will cannot be allowed.
My question is; could we all still be happy and fulfilled human beings?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
You are right, I totally don't understand your point. Is there a different way to express it?
I think Shadeson is speculating about a world in which God has made any action he disapproves of completely impossible. If you aim a pistol at someone and pull the trigger it will always misfire. Stolen money will always slip from your grasp. Attempt to have an affair and you are guaranteed to be frustrated by impotence. Try to gossip, and you will find yourself struck dumb.
Would we be in any way diminished in such a world? I think that's the question. It's not a question about restraints on our action in the 'civil liberties' sense, if I've understood him correctly.
If I'm right about the question, my answer is that the sort of world I can imagine when thinking that way certainly would cost me something that seems to me to be valuable - the ability to make meaningful choices. It's not that I particularly value the ability to do evil, but that as far as I can conceive a world where evil is impossible, I can't especially value the constrained 'choice' to do good.
But that can't be the whole story, from a Christian point of view. The Kingdom of Heaven is supposed to be a place where there is no evil, but if that meant it was a place of meaningless conformity to the will of a puppet-master, it wouldn't be something I'd look forward to. The love of the sanctified soul for God has to be, in some sense, free, even though there's no longer the possibility of sin.
I think one possible answer is that there are conditions, unimaginable now (at least to me) where our choice for or against God is an eternal and comprehensive one. The choices we currently make to obey or disobey are temporary, and limited - good people can fall and bad ones repent - but there may be ultimate choices quite unlike that, still 'free', but of unlimited consequence. Arguments I've heard about why the angels who rebelled cannot repent, but fallen humans can, often take the position that the choices made are of different quality.
I would say that the conditions in this world strongly suggest that free will is something that God values (and therefore we can value it as well), but the Christian hope of heaven is for something more (not less) than natural free will could provide.
[Cross-posted: I think I have understood the question correctly]
[ 12. May 2015, 22:13: Message edited by: Eliab ]
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
"Could we still be happy and fulfilled human beings in a world where we are restrained from doing evil (as defined by God)?"
If I could take a pill to re-wire my brain to prevent me doing Big Evil - murder, rape, large-scale criminal damage etc - then I'd be happy enough to swallow the pill. But these things are not part of my lifestyle and I have an at-least-averagely-strong desire not to do them, so there's not that much point really.
Do I want my car adjusted to force me to keep to the speed limit ? Certainly not. Do I want a mental compulsion to stop me from swearing - in the privacy of my own vehicle - at other drivers who unreasonably impede my progress ? No way. These may be not be admirable habits, but I don't particularly regret them and I value the liberty of indulging in them.
I do some things that I later regret - kicking the cat, being short-tempered with those around me - principally as a way of taking out on others my unexpressed pain and frustration. These are coping mechanisms of a sort. Being restrained feels like it could compound the frustration, to the point of being dangerous to my sanity. Can a man die of frustration ? Of course I want to live in a world where people aren't heaping frustrations on each other. But some of the time I'm not strong enough to be one of those who is breaking the cycle. Don't take away my bad coping mechanisms until you've given me better ones.
So I see at least three categories of what you might call evil, with different answers for each.
Best wishes,
Russ
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
The point of my post is that I am assuming a state where you were physically prevented from doing what is wrong in God's sight. Could you be happy?
Depends on how limiting you think God is.
No murder, no arson, no bullying, destructive cheating, forced to figure out a way to get along with each other or at minimum avoid each other, I don't understand the question, isn't that the culture we all strive for and try to teach our kids?
If you think God has a very narrow rigid view of good, limiting diet to a few specific veggies, clothing to a few specific colors and textures and styles, limiting what you may read to just "the Good Book", limiting TV to only educational shows, frowning on any novels or movies and most music as not directly about God and therefore forbidden, I guess there have been cultures that frown on these and more, I haven't read that the Amish feel deprived although some of the "lock up the wives and kids" groups do feel deprived.
If I thought the only acceptable way to honor the sabbath was to sit and do nothing, that would be confining, but a break from work and housework is welcome, freedom to go on a picnic or party or walk in the woods instead *I* see as honoring God.
How broad or limited is your view of what God thinks "good"?
[code]
Of course, with the Amish's puppy mills and birth defects, that puts another spin on being 'holy' but still being inhumane towards others.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Since evil cannot exist in what is literally the 'Kingdom of God', humanity would have to live in a situation where this particular freedom of the will cannot be allowed.
I would turn that around and say that the Kingdom of God cannot exist where evil is chosen. So it's not something that will come with a new law that prevents evil, it something that will come only when we stop freely choosing evil. However, by its very nature, it's also something that must start with free choice, so eliminating free choice would necessarily prevent it from coming.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
If we define evil as that which is contrary to the will of God, chosen or unchosen, then we actually couldn't actually be not happy about being made to avoid evil, because if we were unhappy about it our very unhappiness would be rebellion and rejection of the will of God.
Tangled webs...
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Thank you Eliab for putting my question in a sensible form. I have made a rather miserable job of it.
However - quote:
cost me something that seems to me to be valuable - the ability to make meaningful choices
I suppose its all about how you imagine life in the Kingdom of God to be. And what are "meaningful choices".
Jesus implied that we would effectively be sexless (sorry for opening that can of worms).
Maybe our agressive instincts are all about sex - but I don't think so. There is something else.
Jesus said nothing about the Kingdom not being a creative, caring, sharing kind of place - limitless in space and possibilities.
If I speculate, (here we need Brenda Clough), I guess with limitless time and no aging beyond maturity and no death, some will say its all cloud cuckoo land. But why couldn't there be challenges and excitement?
Would our human nature, in the circumstance of finding ourselves restricted from forcing others to our will, be unsatisfied and unhappy - particularly if we had known nothing else ?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I am trying to say that as human beings part of our nature is to use our free will to impose that will, by force, on others. Even to the extent of causing others to suffer. Fortunately, not everyone is willing to go that far, but consciously or unconsciously we all want to do it sometimes.
It depends upon what you mean by 'nature'. I think the Christian (at least the Augustinian) answer is that it wouldn't be part of our nature to want to impose our will on others by force if it were not for sin. So if we are freed from sin we would also be freed from willing to impose our wills. Furthermore, wanting to impose our wills on other people is in fact a diminution of our nature - we are less living to our full potential when we do so than when we don't.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Dafyd - I am not a true believer in the idea of Adam's fall being passed on so that all are sinners at birth and God needs a blood sacrifice etc.
I know it is the standard theology but I am much more of the mind that we evolved using force over other groups to attain dominance or whatever.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I see no reason to believe heaven is sex-activity-less.
"Bride" has a meaning that specifically includes sex. Nobody takes a bride intending separate bedrooms for life. Jesus could have chosen "Best friends forever" but he spoke of "bride and bridegroom."
No giving in marriage, a different arrangement, and probably our sex activity is a pale imitation of the real stuff. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can't see God caring about speed if it's not endangering others, I can't see God caring about a swear word in private or public - that's not at all against the commandments, although some people think God gets all twisted about petty details.
But knowingly mis-teach who God is to someone's harm (God wants you to give me all your money so you starve and I'm rich), yes I can see the probability of that being "blocked" - but not by God putting you in a head lock. If, as we get strongly hinted, "all things are known" then people will know when someone is attempting to deceive to harm; because they know what's happening, harmful deceit can't happen.
I have met some (young) people who can't have fun unless they are hurting someone else. They get mad if you warn the next victim. Why should God protect hurtful activity? Don't we regularly fuss that God should stop the human against human vicious pain?
Anyway, God doesn't have to force anyone to stop anything, God just has to remove the blindness, let everyone's intention be seen.
Which is why I came to the conclusion decades ago that some people won't like heaven. All the adventures, millions of worlds to explore, billions of people and who knows what other critters to enjoy, an intimacy like we've never known, probably worlds to design as co-creators, and some people won't be happy because they need to be hurting someone, need to feel falsely superior, all the love won't calm their need to cause pain. Very sad. Just cannot be happy unless hurting someone. Shrinks have diagnoses for that.
The only sin is hurting others. Fast cars are not a sin. Police have less tolerance than God has, but police have to deal with a lot of kids still thinking it's fun getting hurt (so long as it doesn't hurt themselves too much).
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Dafyd - I am not a true believer in the idea of Adam's fall being passed on so that all are sinners at birth and God needs a blood sacrifice etc.
I know it is the standard theology but I am much more of the mind that we evolved using force over other groups to attain dominance or whatever.
I don't think one needs to understand Adam's fall as a literal historical occasion of illicit fruit consumption in order to accept the traditional Christian understanding of sin.
I think evolution can make as much use of cooperation as it does of force. I agree that a purely naturalistic philosophical anthropology will have trouble explaining why cooperation should be normative for human beings and force not, but supernaturalist ethics can discriminate between them.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Belle Ringer quote:
No giving in marriage....
Are you mis-quoting or something? Perhaps "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage" That seems plain enough to me. And where does the bit about bridegrooms come from?
Enough digression; quote:
some people won't like heaven
I'm pleased you come to a similar conclusion to me regarding hell. For those who want to dominate others the Kingdom of God could be an everlasting hell. But otherwise it seems that you also would be happy to be in the kind of situation that Eliab spells out. (I'm not sure about some of the examples he makes. Gossip? could be good could be lies.
Russ also seems to think he would then be under 'behavioural' restrictions which have no effect on anyone else. (Apart from the cat!)
If we wanted to make ourselves unhappy I don't see that as a problem for God's Kingdom.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Dafyd - What is quote:
the traditional Christian understanding of sin
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Macrina quote:
Tangled webs...
or Tangled verbs...?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Belle Ringer quote:
No giving in marriage....
Are you mis-quoting or something? Perhaps "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage" That seems plain enough to me. And where does the bit about bridegrooms come from?
Not misquoting, just reading more than one comment to a few people trying to trap Jesus.
Try reading the mystics.
Beside if heaven is all good things, if there's not physical sex there's something more fun - real fun, not some goodie two shoes "let's go pick flowers and pretend it's sex." Why would we have animals in heavens (take a look at what's pulling the chariot) but not something so widespread in so many varieties as sex? God obviously enjoys playing with sex, does that aspect of God's personality suddenly disappear?
Song of Songs is about, hmm, something so amazing, but then God removes it from existence to make heaven boring by contrast?
No exclusive ownership of a women; my guess is everyone is enjoying sex with God; but read the mystics yourself and see what you think they are talking about.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Dafyd - What is quote:
the traditional Christian understanding of sin
In this context, that sin is a diminution and restriction upon our nature.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Dafyd I know this is bit of a tangent to my original question, but could you just give a 1 or 2 liner with "the traditional Christian understanding of sin" in common context?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
could you just give a 1 or 2 liner with "the traditional Christian understanding of sin" in common context?
No, I don't think I could. What do you mean by common context?
I could say something like 'willed privation of the good', but that contains too many compressed terms to be intelligible.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I bet the ones who walk away from Omelas are unbearably smug.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas
My father's response to that story was, "A city where only one person is miserable and tortured? What a wonderful city." I think he was right. Our system is constantly perpetrating abuses on people, from the garment workers in factories, to the people abused by police, to the migrant workers. Heck think of the abused children the system cannot protect or victims of traffiking. If all those people I have mentioned were only one miserable person, it would be a much more pure city than any I have ever heard of. The ones who walk away walk to something much worse.
[ 14. May 2015, 14:10: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Dafyd I know this is bit of a tangent to my original question, but could you just give a 1 or 2 liner with "the traditional Christian understanding of sin" in common context?
We would not want to force others to our will if we were fully human as God created us to be. We would not have power trips, ego trips, and seek the diminution of others to make ourselves feel more in control, powerful, better, more beautiful, more intelligent etc. The traditional Christian understanding of sin says the things above are not an inherent part of our nature - but a broken version of it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas
My father's response to that story was, "A city where only one person is miserable and tortured? What a wonderful city." I think he was right. Our system is constantly perpetrating abuses on people, from the garment workers in factories, to the people abused by police, to the migrant workers. Heck think of the abused children the system cannot protect or victims of traffiking. If all those people I have mentioned were only one miserable person, it would be a much more pure city than any I have ever heard of. The ones who walk away walk to something much worse.
#Much disagree.
#Many miss the point.
#So wrong.
The problem with the one child being miserable and tortured is that everybody that stayed knew it was the case and accepted the evil consciously for their own benefit.
The problem with the "system" as you say above is that the "system" is much, much larger and more complex than simply consciously and wittingly accepting the torture of one child. The "system" is a sign of our human limitations and brokenness that most of are aware of and rail against but often feel powerless to do anything about. But the system is part of our broken human nature. It is not as God intended it to be.
There can be no heaven if there is a concentration camp next door.
[ 14. May 2015, 15:44: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Evensong, I think we do know. I think we do stay. Do you buy clothes that are made in garment factories? Then you are part of that, and you know it. Do you buy food picked by migrant workers? etc. Just as the people of Omelas knew, we know, and I suspect that was Le Guin's point. Our "city" is much larger than Omelas, and so some of the wrongs happen much further away, but that is the only difference I see.
[ 14. May 2015, 16:18: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
quote:
by Evensong
We would not want to force others to our will if we were fully human as God created us to be
Strangely enough (or perhaps you know your C S Lewis), my OP was as a result of him saying exactly the opposite - we could not be fully human if we could not force others to our will.
I am not sure how to post a link, but you can search 'The problem of pain' Such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void
My case was that if the Kingdom of God was exactly His Kingdom, then evil actions would be impossible and would shipmates be happy under such circumstances?
I'll add that I have not read the book and found his idea while thinking about what finally living in the Kingdom could be like. Being an unbeliever in the ideas of hell and damnation for those whose souls are not 'cured', we will all be living together in that 'new heaven and earth'.
I think 'sin' is being the willing cause of physical suffering in others.
I guess that in this world there are aspects of mental suffering and moral responsiblity which could be included - that is where we find difficulty with definitions. Perhaps in the Kingdom, these aspects would not exist anyway.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Evensong, I think we do know. I think we do stay. Do you buy clothes that are made in garment factories? Then you are part of that, and you know it. Do you buy food picked by migrant workers? etc. Just as the people of Omelas knew, we know, and I suspect that was Le Guin's point. Our "city" is much larger than Omelas, and so some of the wrongs happen much further away, but that is the only difference I see.
The point is scapegoating. I believe the author is quoted as saying so in the wiki article.
There is a difference between poor wages/ working conditions and outright starvation and privation. Often the former prevents the latter.
There is a difference from saying "this is the way it is and we simply accept the order of the world" and saying "this is the way it is and we should not accept the order of the world and try to improve and change it". There was no attempt to change the system in the story. It didn't even seem to be an option. In fact, the acceptance is applauded and the dichotomy set up as something that re-inforced particular attributes.
Upon re-reading I did notice a line I don't think I noticed before tho.
quote:
They know that they, like the child, are not free.
It aint paradise. Not at all.
[ 15. May 2015, 14:04: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
quote:
by Evensong
We would not want to force others to our will if we were fully human as God created us to be
Strangely enough (or perhaps you know your C S Lewis), my OP was as a result of him saying exactly the opposite - we could not be fully human if we could not force others to our will.
I am not sure how to post a link, but you can search 'The problem of pain' Such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void
My case was that if the Kingdom of God was exactly His Kingdom, then evil actions would be impossible and would shipmates be happy under such circumstances?
I'll add that I have not read the book and found his idea while thinking about what finally living in the Kingdom could be like. Being an unbeliever in the ideas of hell and damnation for those whose souls are not 'cured', we will all be living together in that 'new heaven and earth'.
I think 'sin' is being the willing cause of physical suffering in others.
I guess that in this world there are aspects of mental suffering and moral responsiblity which could be included - that is where we find difficulty with definitions. Perhaps in the Kingdom, these aspects would not exist anyway.
Having read the book a few months ago I'm thinking the part you are quoting comes from the context of Lewis explaining why this world is the way it is in terms of God created the world so there would be consequences to our actions. Certain natural laws must be set if there is to be any choice or any notion of free will.
If you read (chapter 5?) on The Fall of Man he describes the paradisiacal person ( Adam ) and how the will of this person would not be stymied from free choice, yet would still be living in accordance with God's will for them. Lewis describes the first sin as the separation into "I". A turning from God to the self. A selfish re-orientation from God's original purposes.
A bit here:
quote:
This act of self will on the part of the creature, which constitutes an utter falseness to its true creaturely position, is the only sin that can be conceived as the Fall. For the difficulty about the first sin is that it must be very heinous, or its consequences would not be so terrible, and yet it must be something which a being free from the temptations of fallen man could conceivably have committed. The turning from God to self fulfills both conditions.
It is a sin possible even to Paradisal man, because the mere existence of a self - the mere fact that we call it "me" - includes from the first, the danger of self idolatry. Since I am I, I must make an act of self surrender, however small or however easy, in living to God rather than to myself. This is, if you like, the "weak spot" in the very nature of creation, the risk which God apparently thinks worth taking.
But the sin was very heinous, because the self which Paradisal man had to surrender contained no natural recalcitrancy to being surrendered. His data, so to speak, were a psychophysical organism wholly subject to the will and a will wholly disposed, though not compelled, to turn to God.
The self surrender which he practised before the Fall meant no struggle but only the delicious overcoming of an infinitesimal self adherence which delighted to be overcome - of which we see a dim analogy in the rapturous mutual self surrenders of lovers even now. He had, therefore, no temptation (in our sense) to choose the self no passion or inclination obstinately inclining that way nothing but the bare fact that the self was himself.
I think the will to power is a part of our brokenness rather than something that will exist in the new heaven and the new earth. Dunno how its all going to work. I think the basic terms of reference will simply be quite different and trying to import our current understandings of good and evil and free will just won't compute.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Evensong, scapegoating is about making someone else suffer in place of yourself. You don't make your own clothes, right? Someone does it for you, and if you buy your clothes at a normal western store, probably someone suffered to make them. etc. No they weren't tortured like the person in Omelas, but if you add up the all the people in society who suffer for us (I listed some of them above) I think we have more than enough suffering to add up to torture. We spread our torture out to more than one person, but I think we in the western world cause considerably more suffering per person than the people of Omelas do. I think I'd feel much more cozy if I could deny that, but I don't want to be in denial.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
quote:
by Evensong
We would not want to force others to our will if we were fully human as God created us to be
Strangely enough (or perhaps you know your C S Lewis), my OP was as a result of him saying exactly the opposite - we could not be fully human if we could not force others to our will.
I often disagree with Lewis.
More basic is the issue of whether or not God really does know best and really does love us and really does work to bring us more fulfilling lives than we can dream of.
If God is seen as a spoil sport, straight laced, rigid, limiting, unsmiling, then it makes sense to not like what God seems to want of us.
But if "forcing others to our will" gives only temporary low level pleasure, and God is inviting us to far deeper longer lasting pleasure, and we cant see it because our focus on the shallow temporary blocks awareness of the deeper lasting, then paying attention to what God suggests is life enriching even though at first it can feel life diminishing.
Sex, for example. A habit of one night stands might offer periodic temporary shallow fun, but compare to a deeply committed long term loving relationship, whole different experience.
The problem is, we don't trust God. We think God is a spoil sport or wet blanket for disapproving of beating up someone who won't do your will. But trying to order him around most likely means never becoming friends. Most of us need more friends, not fewer! A person with no friends is probably lonelier and unhappier than a person with no one to order around with threats or deceits.
[ 15. May 2015, 15:26: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Evensong - I must admit that I find CS Lewis to be very obscure - he seems to live in a magical world where the story of Eden is quite literal.
I thought it had been shown by simple experiment that higher primates were conscious of 'self'. (The mirror and spot on forehead trick).
The young are born selfish as a survival instinct and only learn later that there are others hurting.
However, I do understand that he is talking about how this world is set up.
I know that the ability to harm someone has to be part of the package, in this life, with the freedom to choose between boiled and fried egg.
I suppose, in a sense, I have the same failing as Lewis by taking the 'new heaven and new earth' literally.
But if we were born into a situation where it was natural to be unable to harm someone, we would merely be conscious that a good God was in control, accept it and get on with being creative and happy. Or would some be unhappy?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Evensong - I must admit that I find CS Lewis to be very obscure - he seems to live in a magical world where the story of Eden is quite literal.
No he doesn't. He thinks it a myth with important moral significance. At most, he is open to the idea that some of its details may literally be true, but I'm not aware of any part of his writings where he seems to treat that as an important question.
I think the idea that he thinks that the power to dominate is vital to being human is equally a misreading. The conclusion to "The Problem of Pain" is that we become more truly ourselves when we cease being selfish and become self-giving.
The 'free will defence' to suffering is certainly part of Lewis's thinking, but not the whole of it. I think his view is that currently, for creatures like us, perfect freedom and perfect happiness can't co-exist, but in heaven they will. How that works out is a mystery - none of us have got there yet - but as an expression of the Christian hope it seems to be to be appropriate and orthodox.
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on
:
Eliab quote:
perfect freedom and perfect happiness can't co-exist
- but many have a very limited freedom in this life and are able to be happy. I am not sure about 'perfect happiness'. What is it? I know there is another thread and I'd better read it. (Exits singing 'the bear necessities..... )
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
Eliab quote:
perfect freedom and perfect happiness can't co-exist
- but many have a very limited freedom in this life and are able to be happy. I am not sure about 'perfect happiness'.
I disagree with "perfect freedom and perfect happiness cannot co-exist."
As children we seem to need some structure - some lack of freedom. You must eat your veggies, you must go school, you must go to bed on time - to be happy, because structure is also security. As adults we can choose to avoid veggies, stay home from school or work, stay up all night, but we usually choose not to. We internalize structure because we think it gives us advantages a randomized life doesn't.
If we choose structure, are we acting with freedom or are we surrendering freedom? I say we are choosing, meal by meal whether to eat veggies, so the structure is itself expressing freedom, we are free to change the structure at any time.
And, as Shadeson points out, happiness is not necessarily related to freedom anyway.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If we choose structure, are we acting with freedom or are we surrendering freedom? I say we are choosing, meal by meal whether to eat veggies, so the structure is itself expressing freedom, we are free to change the structure at any time.
And, as Shadeson points out, happiness is not necessarily related to freedom anyway.
Anecdotally, I understand that psycho-therapists deal with a lot of people who need help to change their structures so as to give themselves permission to be happy...
Best wishes,
Russ
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0